Vikings afraid of Scots?

**BEEDEE** · 26th November 10, 06:41 PM

An interesting article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=10598779

Brian

**BoldHighlander** · 26th November 10, 09:09 PM

As one of both Scots & Norse descent (amongst others), I found this article interesting. Thanks for sharing the link Brian.

I don't know if I agree with the authors conclusions that the Norse/Vikings feared the Scots/Celtic people. As I see it, being cautious is a healthy thing & shouldn't be equated with fear

**Red Stag** · 26th November 10, 09:36 PM

"...established powerful colonies in... North America..."

I think not. The only known Norse site in North America is L'Anse aux Meadows and from the documentaries that I have seen they say that it was only a temporary settlement and that they weren't there for very long. Maybe only a couple of years. The Natives seemed to have chased the Vikings out.

**BoldHighlander** · 26th November 10, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Red Stag

"...established powerful colonies in... North America..."

I think not. The only known Norse site in North America is L'Anse aux Meadows and from the documentaries that I have seen they say that it was only a temporary settlement and that they weren't there for very long. Maybe only a couple of years. The Natives seemed to have chased the Vikings out.

Yeah, I caught that too

I've watched & recorded a number of Viking/Norse documentaries. As I recall it wasn't so much hostilities with the Native population that sounded the death knell for L'Anse aux Meadows, as much as it was the great distance that overstretched & exhausted their supply stores (being a "temporary" base camp/way station for further exploration south).

*********************************************

I went back and re-watched my PBS/Nova special on the Vikings, and just now finished watching the segment on L'Anse aux Meadows. It confirmed my original thoughts about the demise of L'Anse aux Meadows. It was in a bad spot (exposed to the elements with little natural resources to support them). Basically they "withered on the vine", if you will. They had to leave or die.

**Morris at Heathfield** · 27th November 10, 04:51 PM

This appears to be the kernel of truth behind the headline:

A new analysis of the classic Icelandic Sagas (Islendingasagur) has unearthed the following counsel: "Icelanders who want to practise robbery are advised to go there ... but it may cost them their life."

I'd be surprised if there weren't some Norsemen who were afraid of some Scots at some time, but I'm not sure this bit of practical advice counts as even a single instance of such.

**Woodsheal** · 27th November 10, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Morris at Heathfield

This appears to be the kernel of truth behind the headline:

I'd be surprised if there weren't some Norsemen who were afraid of some Scots at some time, but I'm not sure this bit of practical advice counts as even a single instance of such.

The quote is from the 13th C. - well after the "Viking Age." The Northmen probably had a healthy respect for Celts, but abject fear? Didn't stop them from conquering and occupying significant swaths of Celtic territory...!

**Geoff Withnell** · 28th November 10, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Red Stag

"...established powerful colonies in... North America..."

I think not. The only known Norse site in North America is L'Anse aux Meadows and from the documentaries that I have seen they say that it was only a temporary settlement and that they weren't there for very long. Maybe only a couple of years. The Natives seemed to have chased the Vikings out.

Greenland is normally considered part of North America. And the only thing that chased the Vikings out of Greenland was climate change.

Geoff Withnell

**BoldHighlander** · 28th November 10, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Geoff Withnell

Greenland is normally considered part of North America.

To be honest Geoff, I never thought of Greenland as part of North America. Thanks for bringing that fact to our attention.

**Dram** · 28th November 10, 07:20 PM

The article seems to based more on feeling than any sort of fact.

Much of my dad's side of the family came from the Isle of Anglesey, Wales and that Island was occupied by the Norse for at least a century. Anglesey is only two hours ferry ride from Dublin another Norse stronghold. If they were wrought with such terror I don't think that they'd be setting up camp for generations in the Irish sea.

**ohiopiper** · 28th November 10, 12:46 AM

I would tend to pronounce a litle skepticism on the article, too. I am of primarly germanic and norse stock, and have looked into the sagas and history a little.

Viking is a verb, to go raiding. Having said that, I'll use the term for the people since everyone knows what I'm talking about.

They had a very strict code of ethics, but it was vastly different than anyone else's. I think this has resulted in the "murderous savage" monicker through history. They, like any other society that preys on others, were looking for easy targets. I'm I'm going to rob a house, I'll choose the pacifist, not the guy with a dozen NRA stickers in his window and a "This prorty protected by Smith & Wesson" bumber sticker. Same with them.

So I think it boils down to not fear, but acknowledgement that there were people out there as willing and able to throw down as they were. Let's go pick on someone else if we can. Of course if we want to stick to the topic of who WAS unnerved by the celts/gael/et al, we can begin the list with the romans. There's that whole Hadrians Wall thing.